State says laid-off Weymouth crossing guards should get jobs back

More than a dozen laid-off crossing guards should get their jobs back and receive back pay after the town illegally eliminated them and hired lower-paid, non-union workers to do the same work, according to a recent state Department of Labor Relations ruling.

More than a dozen laid-off crossing guards should get their jobs back and receive back pay after the town illegally eliminated them and hired lower-paid, non-union workers to do the same work, according to a recent state Department of Labor Relations ruling.

Mayor Susan Kay said Thursday that the town will appeal the decision.

A department hearing officer, Margaret Sullivan, last week sided with the union that represented the crossing guards, who were officially called traffic supervisors. Facing widespread budget cuts, the town laid off all 14 supervisors in June 2010 without properly notifying the union or bringing them back to the bargaining table, Sullivan wrote.

In the fall, the town hired nine “safety guards” to help children cross the street near schools. Like the supervisors, they worked the same two hours a day, activated warning lights near schools and monitored parking lots. But they earned $30 a day, compared to the $39.27 the supervisors were paid per day.

And unlike supervisors, the guards were not given benefits, including paid leave, longevity pay and clothing and cleaning allowances.

The town argued that hiring the new guards did not violate the law because the guards had fewer responsibilities and did a different job, according to the decision. For example, the supervisors were authorized to stop traffic, while guards can only wait for traffic to stop and then direct children to cross.

The supervisors were paid out of the police department budget, while the guards were paid through the school department.

But Sullivan ruled that they performed essentially the same job.

“Although the traffic supervisors and the safety guards may have different techniques for stopping traffic and report to different supervisors, both jobs clearly have the same primary function, which is to assist students to safety cross streets and parking areas near the town’s schools,” she wrote in the decision.

Kay said the town would have had to lay off two police officers if it hadn’t cut the traffic supervisors and that Police Chief Richard Grimes recommended keeping the officers.

“They (supervisors) do an important job when you can afford it, but it got down to a critical state where I was honoring the department head’s decision,” she said.

Bonnie Hayes, the president of the traffic supervisors’ union, referred questions to the parent union, the Boston-based Council 93 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

James Durkin, a spokesman for Council 93, said the union will fight the town’s appeal.

“Anyone in a government leadership position who attempts to deny our members their rights by circumventing a collective-bargaining agreement should know that AFSCME will fight as long as it takes to ensure they are held accountable to the law,” he said in a statement.

Page 2 of 2 - Christian Schiavone may be reached at cschiavone@ledger.com or follow him on Twitter @CSchiavo_Ledger.